Archive through April 12, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 plasma: Archive through April 12, 2003
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 10:45 am: Edit

And how the heck does the Kzinti DC have anything to do with causing there to be less Seeking Weapons in the game. I mean, uhh, what???

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 01:50 pm: Edit

I echo Mike AND Mike.
Seeking plasma is not to be abandoned. It's just more of an offensive/defensive weapon. Upgrading seeking plasma is problematic as I mentioned.

Also, there are now 2 Romulan DF proposals.

Comments?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 01:54 pm: Edit

MJC, 50% more effective could be overkill against GW tech.

That makes the super-sabot a questionable proposal.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 01:55 pm: Edit

Roger,

You'll find three different proposals by me in the plasma archived and a new one from Loren not far back.

There's little point in abandoning plasma-style seeking weapons.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 02:43 pm: Edit

I don't think he means to, John. He did say "Seeking plasma is not to be abandoned." I'll go on record and say I don't want to see seeking plasmas abandoned. I do, though, want to see some new DF paradigm for the plasma races. I proposed the plasma cannon for the roms as an outgrowth of mauler tech. John, you had the photon/plasma for the Gorn. Both just add new dimensions, without retracting the normal strategies a plasma player can have.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 02:45 pm: Edit

I've been thinking about the effect of the Veiled Plasma on GW ships and decided that the bad can be balanced by BPV. You see, though it would make it far more difficult for GW to phaser down a plasma it is the tactic for defeating plasma least used. The primary ways to defeat plamsa remain effective (speed or WW or specific allocation). Perhaps a little more effective in that a WW has defeated a more costly Plasma (remember that the Veil device cost even though it is included in the BPV for three units per launcher. Extras are Commanders Options.), the same for speed.

Now, a super-sabot takes away one of two primary ways to defeat plasma. Speed. Drop every bit of power into speed and it may well have little effect.

Remember, the v-plasma does not break lock-on.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 03:01 pm: Edit

Loren,

That's why we really don't want a veil of more than +1. +2 would be too restrictive on P-3's.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Eagle) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 03:43 pm: Edit

And this leaves the question why veiled torps at all. If it has little impact on combat I can't see anyone bothering paying for all the neccessary research. Faster and more powerful plasma is the logical way to go. If that path is to be abandoned it must either be because the difficulties are to great, in which case NO RACE is likely to get it, or because something better than speed and power turns up!
If we keep this in mind we don't get sidetracked on ideas that will turn out to be stillborn.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 03:54 pm: Edit

No impact?

Hardly. It's the difference between firing at Range-2 and firing at range-1. I suggested a +1 only because more would be just too good.

Faster and more powerful plasma is the way to go, agreed. (Hey, I proposed the 80-pt Z-torp) but with X2 we want to add some new and different stuff to the equation, so just "bgger and better" won't cut it.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Bigger and Better is a part of it, though. I proposed the X torp, with a range of 40 and a sixty point warhead. Not small potatoes, certainly. John's Z torp is even bigger. I want to see bigger and better, but also different. I think we have room for both.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 04:03 pm: Edit

exactamundo.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 04:06 pm: Edit

I prefer faster to stronger.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 04:50 pm: Edit

lacking definitive playtest data to the contrary, I think faster won't play nice with GW-tech

By Aaron Gimblet (Marcus) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 05:01 pm: Edit

My concern with Faster, or more to the point with Pure-Faster, as a design choice, is that if you counterbalance the X2 speed advantages by plasma that hits X2 units and does enough damage to hurt X2 units, its going to turn GW units into mulch. Some extra dimension to plasma (Either a combined DF/Seeking race, like the Trobrin, or a better kind of Bolt for the tubes youve already got) might allow Plasma to still be useful IN SEEKING MODE against X2 ships, without just-plain-smushing any GW ships they run into.

Im a bit iffy on Photon-Plasmas, but weve got a Gorn proposal out there. Lets see some Roms.

Ive got to find some way to make playtest time for this stuff.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 05:23 pm: Edit

Pure faster, IMHO, won't work. For one, it'll run down the GW ships. Two, against X2 shields and other defenses, faster won't matter so much. Speed forty sabots with bigger warheads would seem a better option, but that's me.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 05:58 pm: Edit

To illustrate what Loren and I (and others) are talking about, here is a Rom XCA I made up awhile back. There are two versions with different modules. Y, and Z. Y is a pure seeking plasma ship. Z has a mix of seeking plasma and DF plasma cannon.

R4.?? Romulan XCA-Y

R4.?? Romulan XCA-Z

Now, I'm not submitting these as Rom SSD's for X2. That's Kenneth's race of choice to work on, and I'm all for letting him work out his proposal. These are just to illustrate that it's possible to mix the two types of plasma together without ruining anything.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 06:17 pm: Edit

The Plasma veil would still be effective. The range modifier should be open for now (+1 to +5). I'm OK with what ever works out.

Please note that prior to Y205 the standard Plasma Sabot will be in effect. A veiled sabot may not be able to be ingaged at R1. If you play your launch carefully you can gain a real tactical edge. It will also intice an enemy into using the WW. Also in a situation near the end game a reserved Veil device used could win the scenario.

No, I don't believe the V-Plasma would be too excessive nor too weak. I might even be willing to consider that the range modifier be in relation to the extra power appied. Say a +1 per two points of power applied to a maximum of +5 (or a maximum to later be determined).

Of course, the tactical implications may well not be readily apparent. And such is why it's interesting (to me anyway).

X2 should be rich with new thinking and tactics. None of us should be able to master it quickely. Otherwise, whats the point? A quick SFU history lesson?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 06:29 pm: Edit

Mike R.: Great example.

I can see the Romulans designing their new fleet under this design doctine.

Fast Attack Raiders (PLC's and 1 heavy Plasma)
Main Battle line ships (Plasmas)
Command Capitol ships (Both).
Commando and Police.
Support and Supply.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 06:48 pm: Edit

Earlier I mentioned useing a device like the Veil for plasma on ships.

Call it Tactical Cloak. (Tac'C or Tac' Cloak)
As mentioned above, it does not break lock-on and the ship need not drop fire-control. The range modifier is applied. It could launch veiled plasmas but any other weapon would instantly reduce the range modifier to zero and the ship would have to re-fade.
Again the power cost would be proportionate to the range modifier desired. Two to bring it on-line and two times the movement cost for each modifier. So on a MC1 ship a +1 modifier would cost four power. A +2 would cost 6 etc. A MC1/2 would be three power for a +1, four power for a +2.

The Tac Cloak can be used in conjunction with EW but the ship cannot use ECCM (even while the range modifier is at 0 but Tac'C is active, which is always known to all players) as this is a signal that would counteract the Tac'Cloak.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 06:51 pm: Edit

One last thing for now.
A Tactical Cloaked ship firing a veiled plasma must have the plasmas Range modifier equal or better than the launching ships range modifier or the ship will have it's modifier reduced by the difference.
Any plasma (veiled or not) launched at a target from range 0 will have it's modifier reduced as if it had launched a non-veiled plasma (i.e. reduced to 0).

A Tactical Cloaked ship must fade in compleatly before swiching "Modes" to normal cloak. It is not possible to go into full cloak from tactical mode.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 07:31 pm: Edit

I've been following the debate going on without interfering in it. In both Cloak and Plasma.

Personally I think a veiled Plasma is not a good idea. but I have'nt even set up some hypothetical situations to look at it one way or the other. (And won't have time for at least a month.)

Any way I'm building the Rom's to be on the low end of the gee whiz tech scale. As easier to PT and adjust.

I'll submit my Revised Rom's next week for everyone to look at and comment on. They are intended to be Y205 with some noted boosts being possible for Y215.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, April 12, 2003 - 01:38 am: Edit

Quote:

MJC, 50% more effective could be overkill against GW tech.

That makes the super-sabot a questionable proposal.


In the same way the 24 point Photons are QUESTIONABLE!?!
I think it'll be something that'll fall under BPV based balance rather than rules introduction based balance.


Quote:

I don't think he means to, John. He did say "Seeking plasma is not to be abandoned." I'll go on record and say I don't want to see seeking plasmas abandoned. I do, though, want to see some new DF paradigm for the plasma races. I proposed the plasma cannon for the roms as an outgrowth of mauler tech. John, you had the photon/plasma for the Gorn. Both just add new dimensions, without retracting the normal strategies a plasma player can have.


What about just taking the extra GLORY ZONE HEXES and give then a better to hit, they could stay at 1-4 meanin the Plasma Bolt hits 1-4 all the way out to R10 or they could get 1-5 in the 0-5 hex range. It sounds like massive damage but once you take out the 1/2 damage for bolting it isn't too bad...both ways are workable and playtesting would determine which is the most playable.


Quote:

Now, a super-sabot takes away one of two primary ways to defeat plasma. Speed. Drop every bit of power into speed and it may well have little effect.


Well yes and no.
The Sabot already renders speed as such ineffectual...or so one would think.
The calaculation one must consider is both speed and current range ( and current facing ) such that one deteromes if one can drag out the plasma far enough to mitigate it's effects.
The Super Sabot (and the Extended Glory Zone super sabot) just drags out the range from which you must begin your veering.
The Ph-5 is already causing the battles of the X2 Gorn and X2 Rom to be fought at longer ranges so the enemy will give you a few hexes and you can buy a few hexes by knowing that the plasma is going to be faster ( or even faster and more enduring ) and antipating your actions accordingly.


Quote:

That's why we really don't want a veil of more than +1. +2 would be too restrictive on P-3's.


+2 works fine against Ph-2s and the Kzintis arn't the natural enemy of the Rom and thus their Ph-3s don't really count and the X1 Ph-3 rapid pulses it would be good to get rid of X1 ships with X2 ships and thus their bad rapid pulses could be a good thing but the Sabotted Veiled Plasma could cause problems for the Ph-2s.


Quote:

Hardly. It's the difference between firing at Range-2 and firing at range-1. I suggested a +1 only because more would be just too good.


And what is that exactly...a point of Warhead readuction per four capital phasers fired at it!?!
That a marginal difference...measurable but marginal.
This is one reason why the Sabot isn't a peroblem, R2 fire isn't that much different against a PLasma as R1...id don't know why anyone would think it a game breaker.


Quote:

Faster and more powerful plasma is the way to go, agreed. (Hey, I proposed the 80-pt Z-torp) but with X2 we want to add some new and different stuff to the equation, so just "bgger and better" won't cut it.


About the only thing Plasma has going for it ( apart from being boltable and being aramable with Fs in two turns ) is the WOW Value of the massive warheads...50 points of damage is a lot of damage in any one hit, it's a pitty that more lesser weapons outclasses that.
Bigger may be the one of the only ways to make plasma more exciting.
Though I think we can have slight or no increases in damage and get the increase in offensive capasity that we are looking for.


Quote:

Bigger and Better is a part of it, though. I proposed the X torp, with a range of 40 and a sixty point warhead. Not small potatoes, certainly. John's Z torp is even bigger. I want to see bigger and better, but also different. I think we have room for both.


I think simple faster and longer glory zone should be enough to solve the problem. A bigger warhead might be fun but you won't need a huge warhead really.
Maybe we could make the EPT more fun, increase the arming cost again but let the wahead strength be tripple regular, it'll make dividing by six a little easier.

Quote:

I prefer faster to stronger.


Yeah I seriously think the longer glory zone and super sabot couple should just about do the trick.


Quote:

lacking definitive playtest data to the contrary, I think faster won't play nice with GW-tech


What a strange concept...with exactly the same data I say the GW-tech and Faster PLasma play nicely...the reduction to fire at R2 is minimal.
The relative reduction to the the warhead ( consider how many Plasma S three Gorn vessels will have if a GW task group goes up against a XCC-Rom ) will be massive considering the BPV price tag involved in that faster plasma.

Consider all the things that we've tried to hit with.
Disruptors with +2 UIM, that an auto-hit against GWs and with 8 EW it's unlikely the GWs will have any real chance to change that staus quo.
Proximity Overloaded Photons torpedoes, 12 points of damage 5/6 of the time at R8.
Having the Plasma rush up on the ships at speed 48 and thus increasing the likely hood of FULL DAMAGE ( who runs a plasma completely down!?!...Who in hell runs a Plasma Sabot completely down!?! ) seems like a pretty mild increase.


Quote:

My concern with Faster, or more to the point with Pure-Faster, as a design choice, is that if you counterbalance the X2 speed advantages by plasma that hits X2 units and does enough damage to hurt X2 units, its going to turn GW units into mulch. Some extra dimension to plasma (Either a combined DF/Seeking race, like the Trobrin, or a better kind of Bolt for the tubes youve already got) might allow Plasma to still be useful IN SEEKING MODE against X2 ships, without just-plain-smushing any GW ships they run into.


On the contry, which GW ships are we taking about.
A Plasma M won't really harm a B10 enought to be considered a real threat, by it'self, two plasma Ms won't be considered too much a threat...this is irrespective of whether or not the Plasma is moving at 40 or 48.
If you move to a task group consisting of a CARa+, an NCA and an NCL you might be able to make a mess of the forward sheilds of thow of the ships during the attack approach, you might even be able to make a BUGGER on of the ships with Both Plasma Ms, but you'll find yourself being fired upon by a lot of offensive firepower if you just opt to pull down sheilds and beat up something bad by two undamaged ships getting to close range if you pick on one.
Even with 50 Box sheilds and Caps-to-SSReo, you still get a poke in the eye with a burnt stick.
The mere fact that a handful of people would feel the plasma was avoidable at a speed of R40 don't really matter if the intention was to get into overload range at all costs.


Quote:

Pure faster, IMHO, won't work. For one, it'll run down the GW ships. Two, against X2 shields and other defenses, faster won't matter so much. Speed forty sabots with bigger warheads would seem a better option, but that's me.


Direct fire weapons alreay run down the GW ships.
The GWs will ( against X2 Plasma ) be forced to play out at longer ranges, since to hit a moving ship with plasma you have to get very close.
How close you you have to get with the Speed 40 Sabot???
How close do you have to get to be able to hit with speed 48 Plasma!?!...less than R8, about R8, then that's fine, the Plasma ship can be fired upon by the GW ship within it's overload range and thus we retain the ability to counter fire and thus the game is not broken.
Even if a GW ship has to run like a Phaser Boat to avoid the plasma long enough to change the plasma warhead strength, the BPV of the X2 ship will mean that their are enough phasers in the GW task group to give a pretty good fight to the X2 vessel.

Bigger warheads with speed 40 sabot would in my opinion be more powerful than speed 48 sabot with an extra five hexes of glory zone.
I don't think it's nessessary to build GW smashers, as much as it is to build X1 smashers that happen to be GW catchers...and that the advantage of faster with the same warhead.
X1s are in a lot more trouble than usual ( Particularly with respect to rpid pulses Ph-3s ) but the GWs are in only slightly more trouble than they would be with X1 opponents.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, April 12, 2003 - 03:15 pm: Edit

MJC,

The only way I can assume your meaning of "adding 5 hexes to the glory zone" is to extend the range where a plasma bolt hits in a 1-3 out to range-15.

Combining that with a super-sabot does indeed make the X1 plasma loadout much harder to deal with. It'd probably be all you'd need.

Problem is, it doesn't break any new ground.

I'm far more interested in giving ships interesting and different ways doing combat. In addition to possibly being too much for GW-tech, the super-sabot is just an extension of the sabot. It's not new.

In "X2 for the other guys", Mike Dowd, introduced the idea of splattering a ship with web. That's definitely "interesting and different."

Loren's "veiled plasma" proposal is interesting and different too.

If there's one thing Commander's X2 showed us, it's that it isn't hard to design killer ships. It's harder to design one that are fun to fly.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, April 12, 2003 - 06:40 pm: Edit

1) DERFACS for plasma - range 6-30 hits on 1-3
Reason: Plasma needs something to compete with dancing disruptors more than boosting its 1-10 range odds.

2) Single turn plasma bolts
Put the full amount of power into an X2 plasma in one turn and you can bolt it that turn. The torpedo cannot be held and cannot be launched, it must be bolted or ejected that turn.

3) Plasma bolts use the extended range table of a Sabot when calculating damage, launched or bolted
We make a new weapons chart that lists the same old torps but converts 'count impulses' to 'count hexes' for the faster torps.

4) Allow shotguns and envelopers to be converted from standards at the time of launch with reserve power.

"I'm far more interested in giving ships interesting and different ways doing combat."
You say revolution, I say evolution. I don't want my Alpha to be different, just marginally improved. If I wanted different I'd go play Omega.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, April 12, 2003 - 10:57 pm: Edit

Quote:

The only way I can assume your meaning of "adding 5 hexes to the glory zone" is to extend the range where a plasma bolt hits in a 1-3 out to range-15.

Combining that with a super-sabot does indeed make the X1 plasma loadout much harder to deal with. It'd probably be all you'd need.


Well I was meaning the glory zone was the distance over which the warhead does not decrease in strength, that is the distance out to which the plasma will inflict maximum damage ( assuming free space ).


Quote:

Problem is, it doesn't break any new ground.

I'm far more interested in giving ships interesting and different ways doing combat. In addition to possibly being too much for GW-tech, the super-sabot is just an extension of the sabot. It's not new.


Are you sure that's what you actually want to do with your heavy weapons!?!
Sure the Caps-to-SSReo and the A.S.I.F. are new and different BUT...
Are 24 point Photons new and different!?!
What about +2 UIM and Defracs for the Disruptors?
24/8/40 and 48/10/40 ( Type X and XI ) drones?
What about the Phaser-5 or the Phaser-6?

The truth of the matter is that Heavies won't get new and different all that much, but rather they will get better and more flexible and occasionally more accurate.
The real NEW and Different will come with movement and Defensive systems ( such as the A.S.I.F. ).
X2 Ships will not be expensive because they can fire like three ships and defend like one ship of it's class: they will be expensive because they can fire like 2 ships ( a slight improvment over X1 ) and defend like two ships ( a major improvement over X1 ).


Quote:

4) Allow shotguns and envelopers to be converted from standards at the time of launch with reserve power.


Great idea.


Quote:

"I'm far more interested in giving ships interesting and different ways doing combat."
You say revolution, I say evolution. I don't want my Alpha to be different, just marginally improved. If I wanted different I'd go play Omega.


I wouldn't express this so strongly.
X2 is suposed to FURTHER ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY and not radical departures in racial flavour.

X2 should really be increases in fire power and not technic, or range and not technique or speed and not technique BECAUSE through those changes, new techniques will arrise.
Was not Bruce Lee interested in doing away with the idea or STYLES so that each fight would be fought by the protagonist using improvisation, and the selection of the right action at the right time against the right opponent that is right for the protagonist as he sees fit.
So too, the starfleet races are given choices, develop totally new technologies or develop existing technologies...which corrisponds to the martial-artist going down to some other Dojo and learning a new fighting style or going to his regular Dojo and improving his current fighting style because quite simply he already has a foundation in that technique set, hence most people would choose to study more of the same rather than something new.
So too, with Starfleet races, it'ld be better for them to develop on existing technologies and see what changes to their current forte' tactics naturally grow than to learn totally tactics to capitalise on new (and less-tested) systems.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation